Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-11-2015, 06:40 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(05-11-2015 06:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 12:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  All of that adds up to you being like a petulant five year-old demanding answers while the adults point out that the answer isn't known.

You continue to claim that insufficient evidence isn't enough reason to not take a position.

And stop with the ad hominem bullshit; you sound like an utter ass.

Quote:You continue to claim that what you have is sufficient evidence. It is not, it is hearsay and your conclusions are opinions, not facts.

No, I pretty much ignore your semantic argument over the word evidence, just like I ignore folks who reject the ToE semantic argument over the word fact. I focus on the conclusions that can be drawn from the various sources and materials we have (your dispute here is primarily as to whether or not the term evidence is appropriate labelling of them). My dispute and support are primarily about the reasonableness and credulity of some set of conclusions over another set of conclusions.

Even though you believe that reasonable and unreasonable conclusions can be drawn from items listed in the category of "not evidence". You avoid actually attempting to argue for or against the reasonable of any particular conclusion. I would love to hear you read Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist, and then hear your take on whether his conclusions are reasonable or not.

You have you own unique particular way of thinking in regards to the question of historicity, focusing primarily on the meaning of terminology, opposed to attempting to form reasonable conclusions. I'm not particularly trying to dictate how you should think, I'm just pointing out that your basic objections are meaningless.

That you do not understand what evidence is does not make my argument a semantic one.

Evidence is a body of facts; hearsay is not fact. Using hearsay as 'evidence' makes your position an opinion.

You are welcome to your opinion, but your position is not proven.

Quote:And your suggestion that your position is the only honest one, is a lie. Maybe it's honest, but so is Ehrmans. But perhaps this is not an accurate representation of your views? Maybe you believe historicist views can also be honest ones, as well as your agnosticism. That Ehrman's historicist perspective is at the very least as honest as yours? When it comes to honesty would you concede that much?

When there are insufficient facts on either side, my position is that neither side has sufficient evidence. You can have an honest opinion, but that does not make your position anything other than opinion and to defend it as proven is not honest.

You are convinced by hearsay that the historicity of Jesus is the stronger position, but that is not evidence-based.

Besides, you continue to avoid defining what you mean by "the historicity of Jesus".
Exactly what Jesus do you claim existed? A preacher around whom a myth grew? The Jesus of the Bible? Other?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
09-11-2015, 09:45 AM (This post was last modified: 09-11-2015 09:52 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(09-11-2015 06:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  That you do not understand what evidence is does not make my argument a semantic one.

Which more accurately translates to a claim that I don’t understand Chas’s descriptive definition of evidence. But what you refuse to recognize that this is not the problem, the problem is that we both have our own descriptive definitions. I could provide a variety of definitions supportive of my use of the term, a variety of uses by scholars and historians applying the terms in the same way to the same material and sources.

Mines involves a description that engages the use of the term across multiple disciplines, you seem to reserve the meaning as understand perhaps by a single discipline. In my use evidence is one that makes an inference reasonable, whether you label that inference as opinion, explanation, or conclusion.

Either way, we’ve been down this road before, and it is entirely a semantic one. We could probably point out a variety of ways your definition is inconsistent, but that’s beside the point. You’re argument no matter how you want to dress it up here, is reducible to a quibble over a terminology. Your basic dispute seems to be about dictating particular words choices, even though my use of the term is consistent with the way actual historians, and scholars use the term.

The substantive question here is not in regards to the use of terminology, but the reasonableness of any particular conclusion over the other. You might not think along the lines of this, but that doesn’t matter to me, and leaves you basic objections almost entirely meaningless for all intents and purposes. Take any course on ancient history, offering your basic contentions, and we’ll see how far that argument goes.

Quote:When there are insufficient facts on either side, my position is that neither side has sufficient evidence. You can have an honest opinion, but that does not make your position anything other than opinion and to defend it as proven is not honest.

You don’t seem to have a proper formulation of any side of the discussion. You don’t even seem to gauge whether any particular conclusions borders on absurdity, which conclusions are reasonable, which stretch credulity etc….. All you seem to focus all your energy on is you inane suggestion that where historians like Ehrman takes the existence of Jesus as a historical fact, you on the other hand want them to label it as an “opinion” because that’s an aesthetically more preferable word for you.

You’re not gonna get me to agree with your terms. If it’s more comfortable in your head, to treat the conclusions, as opinion, that’s all you.

Quote:You are convinced by hearsay that the historicity of Jesus is the stronger position, but that is not evidence-based.

No, I claim that the variety of conclusions offered for a non-historical, mythicist account of Yeshua, are not only false, but are absurd, and stretch credulity to a similar degree as believing the holocaust was a hoax, 9/11 was an inside job, and that human’s rode dinosaurs. The conclusion is appealing to certain populace ignorant of history, or polluted by their anti-christian tendencies to believe or tacitly support that position.

If you think that mythicist conclusions are just as strong as the historicist position, you should be able to defend the strength of those argument, but you don’t even do that. You don’t defend the assertion the conclusions are just as strong. It’s not even clear to me which mythicist conclusions do you think are just as strong, all of them? Because clearly there a plethora of them, only the more recent ones have gotten a bit better. Can you defend the strength of any of them? Are you even familiar with them enough to defend them? Or have judged them as strongly a bit prematurely. You seem to be devoted to a series of negative arguments offered by mythicist, but not necessarily in support of any of the positive ones that you supposedly deem as strong.

Quote:Besides, you continue to avoid defining what you mean by "the historicity of Jesus".
Exactly what Jesus do you claim existed? A preacher around whom a myth grew?

I defined that on numerous occasions, and judging that you tended to be involved more often than not in those discussions, it’s a bit surprising that you haven’t heard it already. The historical Yeshua that i argue for is one aligned with the secular historical account offered by historians like Ehrman, of a Yeshua who was a jewish, apocalyptic preacher, who went around talking about the kingdom of God, telling a variety of parables, and sayings, that incorporated irony, and frustration of expectations, who was a messiah claimant, who had a brother named James, and disciples, and was eventually crucified by the Romans. His unexpected death led his followers to reinterpret his defeat as a part of messianic expectations, the way the follower of Sabbatai Zevi interpreted his forced conversion to Islam, as part of the role of the messiah. He was a historical person whom myths, and fanciful attributes grew around, just like they do with every revered cult leader, and even more so in that period in history. And the sources and materials, as well as accounts, all fall in line with the expectations of historical person, such the accounts of individuals who met his disciples, and his brother, and not a mythicist one. We have yet to find those rabbits in the precambrian.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2015, 10:04 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(09-11-2015 09:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Which accurately translates to a claim that I don’t understand chas’s descriptive definition of evidence.

Not my definition, the one accepted by science.

Quote:Mines involves a description that engages the use of the term across multiple disciplines, you seem to reserve the meaning as understand perhaps by a single discipline. That evidence is one that makes an inference, whether you label that inference as opinion, explanation, or conclusion, as reasonable.

I don't care about that which is not based on fact. Both sides have arguments which are opinions.

Quote:Either way, we’ve been down this road before, and it is entirely a semantic one.

You can continue to dismiss the actual definition of evidence as a semantic argument, but that doesn't make it so.

Quote:We could probably point out a variety of ways your definition is inconsistent, but that’s beside the point.

It's not, so please point them out.

Quote:You’re argument no matter how you want to dress it up here, is reducible to a quibble over a terminology. Your basic dispute seems to be about dictating particular words choices, even though my use of the term is consistent with the way actual historians, and scholars use the term.

That you think the difference between evidence and hearsay is a quibble illustrates my point perfectly. Thank you.

Quote:The substantive question here is not in regards to the use of terminology, but the reasonableness of any particular conclusion over the other.

Not my argument. Either, neither, or both arguments might be judged reasonable by different people, but neither has sufficient evidence backing it up.

Quote:You might not think along the lines of this, but that doesn’t matter to me, and leaves you basic objections almost entirely meaningless for all intents and purposes. Take any course on ancient history, offering your basic contentions, and we’ll see how far that argument goes.

Historical interpretation that is not based on factual records, artifacts, or support from other sources is opinion, not fact.

Quote:You don’t seem to have a proper formulation of any side of the discussion. You don’t even seem to gauge whether any particular conclusions borders on absurdity, which conclusions are reasonable, which stretch credulity etc…..

I have not offered any because they are not germane to my argument.

Quote:All you seem to focus all your energy on is you inane suggestion that where historians like Ehrman takes the existence of Jesus as a historical fact, you on the other hand want them to label it as an “opinion” because that’s an aesthetically more preferable word for you.

Ehrman can present his opinion as fact, but that doesn't make it so.

Quote:You’re not gonna get me to agree with your terms. If it’s more comfortable in your head, to treat the conclusions, as opinion, that’s all you.

So?

Quote:
Quote:You are convinced by hearsay that the historicity of Jesus is the stronger position, but that is not evidence-based.

No, I claim that the variety of conclusions offered for a non-historical, mythicist account of Yeshua, are not only false, but are absurd, and stretch credulity to a similar degree as believing the holocaust was a hoax, 9/11 was an inside job, and that human’s rode dinosaurs. The conclusion is appealing to certain populace ignorant of history, or polluted by their anti-christian tendencies to believe or tacitly support that position.

If you think that mythicist conclusions are just as strong as the historicist position, you should be able to defend the strength of those argument, but you don’t even do that.

No, because it is not germane to my argument.

Quote:You don’t defend the assertion the conclusions are just as strong.

No, because it is not germane to my argument.

Quote:It’s not even clear to me which mythicist conclusions do you think are just as strong, all of them? Because clearly there a plethora of them, only the more recent ones have gotten a bit better. Can you defend the strength of any of them?

No, not my job because it is not germane to my argument.

Quote:Are you even familiar with them enough to defend them?

You don't get it, I am not defending any of them.

Quote:Or have judged them as strongly a bit prematurely. You seem to be devoted to a series of negative arguments offered by mythicist, but not necessarily in support of any of the positive ones that you supposedly deem as strong.

I have only judged that those don't have much in the way of evidence.

Quote:
Quote:Besides, you continue to avoid defining what you mean by "the historicity of Jesus".
Exactly what Jesus do you claim existed? A preacher around whom a myth grew?

I defined that on numerous occasions, and judging that you tended to be involved more often than not in those discussions, it’s a bit surprising that you haven’t heard it already. The historical Yeshua that i argue for is one aligned with the secular historical account offered by historians like Ehrman, of a Yeshua who was a jewish, apocalyptic preacher, who went around talking about the kingdom of God, telling a variety of parables, and sayings, that incorporated irony, and frustration of expectations, who was a messiah claimant, who had a brother named James, and disciples, and was eventually crucified by the Romans. His unexpected death led his followers to reinterpret his defeat as a part of messianic expectations, the way the follower of Sabbatai Zevi interpreted his forced conversion to Islam, as part of the role of the messiah. He was a historical person whom myths, and fanciful attributes grew around, just like they do with every revered cult leader, and even more so in that period in history. And the sources and materials, as well as accounts, all fall in line with the expectations of historical person, such the accounts of individuals who met his disciples, and his brother, and not a mythicist one. We have yet to find those rabbits in the precambrian.

I agree that that is very possibly true, but not overwhelmingly so. It is also quite possibly true that it is an amalgamation of more than one person's history. It is also quite possible that it is wishful thinking by a small sect of Jews who wanted there to be a Messiah.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
09-11-2015, 11:39 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(09-11-2015 09:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I could provide a variety of definitions supportive of my use of the term, a variety of uses by scholars and historians applying the terms in the same way to the same material and sources.

Then do so.

(09-11-2015 09:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Mines involves a description that engages the use of the term across multiple disciplines, you seem to reserve the meaning as understand perhaps by a single discipline. In my use evidence is one that makes an inference reasonable, whether you label that inference as opinion, explanation, or conclusion.

Then demonstrate it, here. Now.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-11-2015, 10:24 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(09-11-2015 11:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-11-2015 09:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I could provide a variety of definitions supportive of my use of the term, a variety of uses by scholars and historians applying the terms in the same way to the same material and sources.

Then do so.

(09-11-2015 09:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Mines involves a description that engages the use of the term across multiple disciplines, you seem to reserve the meaning as understand perhaps by a single discipline. In my use evidence is one that makes an inference reasonable, whether you label that inference as opinion, explanation, or conclusion.

Then demonstrate it, here. Now.

Responses seem to be...lacking...Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2015, 01:32 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(09-11-2015 10:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  agree that that is very possibly true, but not overwhelmingly so. It is also quite possibly true that it is an amalgamation of more than one person's history. It is also quite possible that it is wishful thinking by a small sect of Jews who wanted there to be a Messiah.

There’s great deal in between very possibly true, but not overwhelmingly true. But regardless a conclusion that involves a small sect of jews who expected and imagined a non-historical messiah, is not a strong conclusion, it’s an absurd one, with no evidence, no early sources, in support of the exist of such beliefs. The conclusions, of the poster who claimed Christianity is based on fertility and natural cycles, as well as all religion, is quite noticeably off the rocker. Those who might offer a slightly more palatable mythicist account are not that far behind.

You seem to put some stock in the claim that Yeshua was an amalgamation of more then one historical person, but you seem to have pulled that one of your ass as well, and I'm sure you have no desire to actually defend the reasonableness of that conclusion.

Quote:Ehrman can present his opinion as fact, but that doesn't make it so.

And you claiming it’s opinion, doesn’t make it so either. It’s comparable to a creationist claim that evolution is a not a “fact”, since we haven't witnessed millions of years of evolution first hand. It tends to reveal your own ignorance, more so than anything else.

Quote:No, because it is not germane to my argument.

If I were to claim agnosticism on the creationism vs evolutionist debate, while claiming that creationist arguments are just as strong as evolutionist arguments, I would think I’d have some answering to do. That I have some responsibility to defend this contention. But whatever.

Your real argument is a narrow one, focused primary on the definition of the word evidence.

You seem to see yourself in possession of an authoritative definition, accepted by science, but I’m gonna call your bluff. It’s unlikely you can cite some authoritative organization body, that defines the term and use across multiple scientific disciplines, dealing with both experimental sciences, and historical sciences, physics, biology, sociology, anthropology, etc….And it appears we’re primarily dealing with Chas’s definition, derived primarily through his own personal experiences.

We can quibble all day about definitions, and get no where.

Here are some understandings and definitions, of the terms consistent with my understanding and use:

“In any event, the concept of evidence is inseparable from that of justification. When we talk of ‘evidence’ in an epistemological sense we are talking about justification: one thing is ‘evidence’ for another just in case the first tends to enhance the reasonableness or justification of the second.… A strictly nonnormative concept of evidence is not our concept of evidence; it is something that we do not understand.”

   —Jaegwon Kim, ‘What is “Naturalized Epistemology”?’

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/

Or even the wikipedia definition: “Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak.”

You might not like these definitions, but that’s your problem, and not mine. Your argument over the definitions is nothing other than semantical, I’m not sure why you refuse to acknowledge the obvious here.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2015, 05:38 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(10-11-2015 01:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-11-2015 10:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  agree that that is very possibly true, but not overwhelmingly so. It is also quite possibly true that it is an amalgamation of more than one person's history. It is also quite possible that it is wishful thinking by a small sect of Jews who wanted there to be a Messiah.

There’s great deal in between very possibly true, but not overwhelmingly true. But regardless a conclusion that involves a small sect of jews who expected and imagined a non-historical messiah, is not a strong conclusion, it’s an absurd one, with no evidence, no early sources, in support of the exist of such beliefs. The conclusions, of the poster who claimed Christianity is based on fertility and natural cycles, as well as all religion, is quite noticeably off the rocker. Those who might offer a slightly more palatable mythicist account are not that far behind.

You seem to put some stock in the claim that Yeshua was an amalgamation of more then one historical person, but you seem to have pulled that one of your ass as well, and I'm sure you have no desire to actually defend the reasonableness of that conclusion.

Was John Frum a historical figure or a myth? Google "cargo cults".

You vastly underestimate human imagination and gullibility, and vastly overestimate the accuracy of human memory.

Quote:
Quote:Ehrman can present his opinion as fact, but that doesn't make it so.

And you claiming it’s opinion, doesn’t make it so either.

Since it is his conclusion, it is by definition his opinion.

Quote:It’s comparable to a creationist claim that evolution is a not a “fact”, since we haven't witnessed millions of years of evolution first hand. It tends to reveal your own ignorance, more so than anything else.

Actually, that statement highlights your ignorance of the scientific method and the definition of objective evidence.
Evolution is supported by objective, physical evidence. Fossils are not opinions or hearsay, DNA is not an opinion or hearsay, mutation is not an opinion or hearsay.

Quote:
Quote:No, because it is not germane to my argument.

If I were to claim agnosticism on the creationism vs evolutionist debate, while claiming that creationist arguments are just as strong as evolutionist arguments, I would think I’d have some answering to do. That I have some responsibility to defend this contention. But whatever.

I have nowhere claimed that any position is stronger or weaker, only that none have sufficient evidence. Why do I have to keep repeating that? Consider

Quote:Your real argument is a narrow one, focused primary on the definition of the word evidence.

No, it is a basic one that recognizes that hearsay is not evidence. Hearsay is not even allowed in courts.

Quote:You seem to see yourself in possession of an authoritative definition, accepted by science, but I’m gonna call your bluff.

I am not bluffing, you are simply ignorant.

Quote:It’s unlikely you can cite some authoritative organization body, that defines the term and use across multiple scientific disciplines, dealing with both experimental sciences, and historical sciences, physics, biology, sociology, anthropology, etc….And it appears we’re primarily dealing with Chas’s definition, derived primarily through his own personal experiences.

We can quibble all day about definitions, and get no where.

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method."
Quote:Here are some understandings and definitions, of the terms consistent with my understanding and use:

“In any event, the concept of evidence is inseparable from that of justification. When we talk of ‘evidence’ in an epistemological sense we are talking about justification: one thing is ‘evidence’ for another just in case the first tends to enhance the reasonableness or justification of the second.… A strictly nonnormative concept of evidence is not our concept of evidence; it is something that we do not understand.”

   —Jaegwon Kim, ‘What is “Naturalized Epistemology”?’

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/

Or even the wikipedia definition: “Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak.”

You might not like these definitions, but that’s your problem, and not mine. Your argument over the definitions is nothing other than semantical, I’m not sure why you refuse to acknowledge the obvious here.

Those are not definitions of empirical evidence, nor are they from scientists.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
10-11-2015, 05:48 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(10-11-2015 01:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  There’s great deal in between very possibly true, but not overwhelmingly true. But regardless a conclusion that involves a small sect of jews who expected and imagined a non-historical messiah, is not a strong conclusion, it’s an absurd one, with no evidence, no early sources, in support of the exist of such beliefs.

Complete bullshit. If some mid to late century Jews conflated some of the messiah figures, (and there IS evidence that may have happened .. dying and rising gods were a dime a dozen, AND the Gabriel Stone proves that there was at least one other), and started a cult, there is no way anyone would have had, to VERIFY the claims. They may have accepted a FAKE, (not a "non-historical") messiah. You don't even get the basic argument, much less know about any of them. Your bullshit is a strawman. No one says they were "expecting a non-historical" messiah. Just more of your usual nonsense.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-11-2015, 07:57 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(10-11-2015 05:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You don't even get the basic argument, much less know about any of them. Your bullshit is a strawman. No one says they were "expecting a non-historical" messiah. Just more of your usual nonsense.

Regardless if anyone in your view claims said this or not, a conclusion that involves a small sect of jews who expected and imagine a non-historical messiah, would be absurd one.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2015, 08:40 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(10-11-2015 07:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-11-2015 05:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You don't even get the basic argument, much less know about any of them. Your bullshit is a strawman. No one says they were "expecting a non-historical" messiah. Just more of your usual nonsense.

Regardless if anyone in your view claims said this or not, a conclusion that involves a small sect of jews who expected and imagine a non-historical messiah, would be absurd one.

In your opinion. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: